Simon,
Having just read ch 27, if the solar nebula model is the basis for the lack of angular momentum in the sun, then by default doesn’t this imply a heliocentric system? It seems that the lack of momentum and certain retrrograde orbits falsifies the theory. Any thoughts?
Dear schoepffer,
You have it exactly upside down : the lack of angular momentum of the Sun constitutes a problem - i.e. not a supportive aspect - for the solar nebula hypothesis (and yes, it is no more than a hypothesis - and a most controversial one at that!).
"Perhaps the most important issue to be resolved in future versions of the solar nebula model is that of the distribution of angular momentum. The problem for the solar nebula theory is that it predicts that most of the mass and angular momentum should be in the Sun." The Angular Momentum Problem - Science Jrank.org
What needs to be understood is that the current value of the Sun’s angular momentum is an assumed one - and this assumption is of course based upon the heliocentric theory and its implied paradigms (e.g. under the idea that the Sun has no ‘local orbital motion’ - as I like to call it ). To wit, it is thought that the Sun only has a HUGE orbit which it completes in “220-250 million years”… Their calculations of the Sun’s angular momentum (which yield a minuscule value for the same) are thus grossly flawed. Now, as the Binary Institute researchers have demonstrated (see article linked below), if one assumes that the Sun has a “24000-year binary orbit”, the Sun’s angular momentum comes right into line with the other bodies in our solar system:
A must read: ANGULAR MOMENTUM - Evidence / Binary Research Institute
As for your question regarding “certain retrograde orbits” (which would falsify the Tychos?), I’m not sure what you mean by that - so please clarify your thoughts! 
Dearest Simon,
I did not make my question clear it seems. I am in full concordance with you that the lack of angular momentum does not support the nebular hypothesis. What I mean to say is that science, at present, attributes the necessity of angular momentum to the nebular hypothesis, it (angular momentum) is the outcome of the process, so to speak. And hence the deficit of angular momentum found with the sun would seem to me to falsify the theory altogether. I was referring in my mention of retrograde orbits; falsifying the nebular theory, not Tychos.
But the more pertinent thing that I was intending to convey is that the nebular hypothesis supposes the sun to be at the center of that evolved solar system and since containing the most mass would necessarily have the most angular momentum. The model itself demands a helio-centric arrangement and precludes any other. Hence earth could never be at the center of any nebular hypothesis.
Yet toward the end of Ch. 27, you write, “Conversely, under the TYCHOS paradigm, this “pesky mystery” would not only completely disappear - but it may even help in rescuing Newtonian physics from its own contradictions.”
So are you here implying that the Tychos solves the angular momentum problem due to the concept of the nebular hypothesis? I don’t see how any nebular hypothesis can support ANY arrangement of the solar system which doesn’t have the most massive object at its center.
I hope that I have made myself clearer and I look forward to your reply, I appreciate you taking the time to field all of our inquiries.
Ok, thanks for clarifying your thoughts, dear schoepffer. Before tackling your questions, let me first quote from Wikipedia’s “nebular hypothesis” entry:
“The nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model in the field of cosmogony to explain the formation and evolution of the Solar System (as well as other planetary systems. It suggests the Solar System is formed from gas and dust orbiting the Sun.”
Well, as should be clear to the readers of my book, I do not put forth any ‘alternative nebular hypothesis’ of my own - nor does the Tychos have any pretence to explain the very formation and evolution of the Solar System; I am quite happy to leave this humongous riddle for future generations to study and - perhaps resolve - some fine day.
Let me once more reiterate this fundamental point: the TYCHOS model has no ambition of being a “TOE” (Theory Of Everything"). Instead, it implies and proposes that we should all ‘take a step back’ and stick to level-headed, rational thinking and empirically verifiable facts - before pretending to figure out just HOW our Universe came to be. Now, since heliocentrism can be shown to violate such a basic thing as the geometric configuration of our Solar System, ALL subsequent speculations that have been put forth regarding its physical properties and related phenomena (e.g. “gravity”, “relativity”, “solar nebula”.etc) must be - at best - profoundly revised or - at worst - thrown out and abandoned altogether. So, when I write things such as “rescuing Newtonian physics”, please view them as mildly provocative, ‘tongue-in-cheek quips’ of mine…
Now, for the sake of argument (and open-minded speculation), let’s say that the nebular hypothesis is valid and non-dismissable. The Earth would then, according to the theory, have to be (in the TYCHOS model) the most massive body in our system. Well, why not? After all, the Earth has the largest moon (proportionally speaking) of all the bodies in our solar system. Yes, according to the TYCHOS, the Sun has two larger moons (Venus and Mercury whose sizes are, curiously enough, almost identical to those of the Earth and our Moon) - but their sizes are FAR smaller (proportionally speaking) than the Sun. Besides, the Sun is apparently made of 98% hydrogen and helium - the two lightest gases known to man. So even though the Sun’s diameter is 109X larger than the Earth’s, could it perhaps be far less 'massive / dense" than currently believed?
Of course, these are all conjectures - but so are (in my humble opinion) most of the current, “widely-accepted” knowledge and teachings concerning the physics regulating our Solar System - as well as the very origins of the same. We live in an era ravaged, stalled and intellectually hampered by the ingrained presumptuousness of our world’s scientific community which refuses to return to the drawing board and obtusely rejects any emerging evidence which challenges the heliocentric dogma.
Yes, Simon, I agree with you. And could the earth be more massive than the sun? I think that it could be, but then again it still is not certain to me that the sun actually is 109X larger than earth or 92 million miles away for that matter. It feels closer.
It seems to me like they “fitted” the acceleration of gravity to the observational data that they gathered when they started dropping things off of towers and timing the fall with pendulums. If every particle of matter is attracted with the same force toward the center of the earth why are clouds in the sky? And why at certain other times do they fall from their lofts and crash to the ground as rain? So if gravity has nothing at all to do with mass it would not surprise me.